On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 07:19:14PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 09:19:45AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> > > Conformance to YANG for the extension: NONE This includes syntax and
> > > semantics. It makes no sense at all (Lada is right) to say the
> > > extension semantics apply. They only apply if the tool supports the
> > > extension. Conformance to the extension is a different matter.
> >
> > I would hope that a server supporting NACM implements the behaviour of
> > nacm:default-deny-write when nodes are tagged with this extension.
> > Sure, a YANG parser is allowed to skip over nacm:default-deny-write
> > but if nacm:default-deny-write is used for a certain node, I think we
> > want the server to implement the semantics implied by
> > nacm:default-deny-write regardless which tool the developer used.
> >
> >
> I do not agree.
> The semantics for this YANG extension only apply to NACM.
> Of course an implementation of NACM cannot ignore this extension.
>
> The extensions says what to do in NACM if the tag is found.
> (As it should). It does not define any behavior outside of NACM.
> No other tool except a NETCONF server implementation
> of NACM has any conformance requirement to implement this extension.
I am confused, perhaps we talk past each other. If a server implements
NACM and some data model X contains
leaf foo {
type string;
nacm:default-deny-write;
}
does this not mean that the nacm:default-deny-write semantics must be
implemented for the foo leaf regardless whether the developer's tool
is able to parse nacm:default-deny-write or skips over it?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
